Metaphors in Design Problem Solving.docx

7/24/2019 Metaphors in Design Problem Solving.docx

1/25


2/25

sociology. #t present, 'r. &asakin is working on the assessment of creativity and its effect on studentsA performance

in the architectural design studio.

Introduction

&ontemporary theories have defined meta$horsas a structuring of our cognitive system ;akoff,

2B7/5 ;akoff < 6ohnson, 2B70. Metaphors affect the way we perceive the world, categori!e

experiences, and organi!e our thoughts. These devices have a fundamental role, as they not only

guide reasoning but also enhance innovative thinking. They allow the designer to think

unconventionally and encourage the application of novel ideas to design problems. The

employment of metaphors by architects is well documented in literature through a vast number

of examples. Cevertheless, not many empirical investigations have verified the contribution of

metaphors to design. *n a recent study, &asakin -D0 found that metaphors help to identify and

capture design concepts, as well as define goals and re$uirements. *n another research, the aid

provided by metaphors to develop unconventional solutions was seen to be more fruitful in theinitial stages of the design process, known as conceptual design. Metaphor use in the final stages

of the design process is more complex and therefore demands more expertise &asakin, -40.

#part from knowledge and expertise, design problems re$uire creativity. &reative thinking

enables one to perceive a problem from unorthodox and innovative perspectives &asakin tility and adaptabilityA and Aluency and beautyA factors. +owever, no

significant correlations were obtained between A*nnovation and constraints in designA and the

other factors )ee Table /0. The data corresponding to the variable A@eneral creativityA was

obtained by computing the mean of the 22 items presented to students in the )urvey of #ttitudes

about 'esign &reativity.

Table )" Correlations bet2een the factors of creativity 1;


17/25

Pearson Productmoment Correlations 6et2een the Factors of Creativity and Metaphor

&orrelations between factors of metaphor and creativity were analy!ed through a (earsonproduct moment )ee Table B0. *t should be noted that each of the metaphor factors was related

to one or more creativity factors. The following are some remarkable findings1

2. A@eneral creativityA was related significantly to all the metaphor factors.

-. A*nnovation and constraints considerationA was the most significantly related creativity

variable, followed by A>tility and adaptabilityA.

3. Aluency and beautyA was the least correlated variable.

D. A#nalysis of design problemsA was the most correlated factor of metaphors.

F. While the assistance of metaphors in the A)ynthesis of design solutionsA was correlated

with A*nnovation and constraints considerationA A&onceptual thinkingA was the weakest

factor, correlated only with A@eneral creativity.A

Table &" Correlations bet2een the factors of metaphor and creativity 1;


18/25

-egression Analysis 6et2een Factors of Metaphors and Creativity

*n this study, the independent variables are those that assess the metaphor use, while the

dependent variables are those that assess the factors of creativity. Regression analysis was carried

out to test the contribution of metaphor use to design creativity. The regression e$uation that

predicts A@eneral factor of creativityA was significant. #s can be seen from Table 2, factor - of

metaphors dealing with A#nalysis of design problemsA has a positive significant impact on the

A@eneral factor of creativityA betaH.D4FKK0 and on factor 2 of creativity, referring to A*nnovation

and constraints considerations in designA betaH.D32K0. "n the other hand, factor 3 of metaphors,dealing with A&onceptual thinkingA was found to have a negative but significant effect on

Aluency and aesthetic aspectsA of design betaH%.-4DK0. #n additional regression analysis was

performed to test the contribution of metaphor use to the independent variable dealing with

A"verall creativity in design product.AResults confirmed the positive significant impact of the

factor - of metaphors dealing with A#nalysis of design problemsA on A"verall creativity in design

productA betaH.D3/K0 )ee Table 220.

Table !'" -esults of significant regression analysis 2ith the metaphor factors as predictors and

creativity assessment variables as dependent variables


19/25

Table !!" -esults of significant regression analysis 2ith metaphor factors as predictors and

=overall creativity in design product= as dependent variable

Discussion

# factor analysis of the 22 variables that deal with design creativity resulted in three valid

factors. The first and most important factor had an emphasis on A*nnovation and constraints

considerationsA in design. The second factor had an emphasis on A>tility and adaptabilityA in

design. The third factor is the weakest and had saturation on Aluency and aesthetic aspects.A

These findings suggest that when students are re$uested to evaluate design creativity, their

attention is mainly directed toward the innovation of a design. #nother important issue is that for

a design to be creative, it must first satisfy initial design constraints.

*n addition, three major factors were found in the factor analysis of the 2D variables of

metaphors in design. While the first factor had a strong contribution to the A)ynthesis of design

solutions,A the second factor had an impact on the A#nalysis of design problems,A and the third and

weakest factor had saturation on A&onceptual thinking.A Most literature conceives metaphors as

analytical devices that facilitate the understanding of an unknown situation in terms of a familiarone e.g., ;akoff, 2BB35 "rtony, 2BB20. *t is interesting to note that the use of metaphors was seen

by students mainly as a tool supporting the production of innovative design solutions. "nly

thereafter, students valued the analytical and conceptual role of metaphors in design. irst%year

design students who lack expertise and have not developed cognitive schemas ;awson, -D0

might have found it easier to think in terms of concrete and practical situations while dealing

with the design situation.


20/25

#lthough significant correlations were obtained between the A@eneral creativityA factor and

the three factors of creativity, no significant correlations were observed between A*nnovation and

constraints in designA and the other two factors. This last finding supports the argument that

innovation is a major aspect of creativity, which is remarkable from a theoretical point of view.

"ne of the reasons is that in the domain of creativity there is a continuing debate about the

definition of creativity, with the two major components discussed being innovation and utility.

urthermore, significant correlations were found between the A@eneral use of metaphorsA

and all three factors of metaphors. The most correlated factor was A#nalysis of design problems,A

while the stronger correlation was found between this factor and the A)ynthesis of design

solutions.A #naly!ing a design solution and elaborating on it is an ongoing process where

designers set up a reflective dialogue with their materials )chon, 2B730. The strong correlation

found between analysis and synthesis shows that both factors are necessary components of this

cyclical and interactive process.

rom additional analyses, a correlation between the factors of metaphor and creativity was

determined. The argument that metaphors support creativity was reinforced by the finding that

all the factors of metaphor were correlated to at least two creativity variables, as well as to the

A@eneral creativityA factor. While A#nalysis of design problemsA was the most correlated factor of

metaphors, A*nnovation and constraintsA was the most significantly related factor of creativity. *t

can be said that the use of metaphors, in particular A#nalysis of design problems,A has a strong

contribution to creativity, and especially to innovation. A>tility and adaptabilityA was the second

most correlated creativity factor to A#nalysis of problems.A Retrieving a design concept from a

metaphor belonging to a remote domain demands from the designer to be practical and flexible

for adapting the concept to the design problem at hand.

The importance of A#nalysis of design problemsA was confirmed through regression

analysis, where the contribution of each factor of metaphor to creativity was analy!ed separately.

The regression e$uation that predicted the role of metaphors in A#nalysis of problemsA had a

significant and uni$ue contribution to the A@eneral factor of creativity,A and to A*nnovation and

constraints in design.A Regression analysis between metaphors and the dependent variable of

A"verall creativity in the design productA reconfirmed this result. #nother regression analysis

showed that the predictor of A#bstract thinkingA had a significant but negative impact on Aluency

and aesthetics.A #lthough metaphors are initially used to retrieve abstract concepts from remote

and unconnected sources, as the design process develops, designers become more fluent in their

outcomes. luency enables the exploration of design alternatives and increases the chance of

developing detailed and aesthetic design solutions.

Conclusions


21/25

Metaphors are viewed as cognitive strategies that assist in the organi!ation of design thinking.

This investigation was concerned with the study of metaphors in design problem solving, with

implications for design creativity. The assessment of the use of metaphors and creativity in an

architectural design studio was analy!ed through main factors. )ignificant differences in

variances were found between each of these factors. A*nnovationA as opposed to A>tilityA or

AluencyA was the most dominant factor of design creativity and related strongly to the other

factors. This finding confirms the view that, independent of the domain of study, A*nnovationA

represents the essence of creativity.

"n the other hand, A)ynthesis of design solutionsA and A#nalysis of design problemsA were

found to be the most dominant factors of metaphors. These two factors were also found to be

strongly related to A@eneral creativityA and in particular to the factor of A*nnovation.A Therefore, it

can be asserted that the most important role that metaphors play in design problem solving is to

support the design of innovative products. *n contrast, the use of metaphors did not help so much

in the functional and aesthetic aspects of design, such as A>tility and adaptabilityA or A9eauty,A nordid it help in the development of a dynamic and fluid design process. #lthough students were

able to enhance the originality of their products, they were not fluent enough to produce design

alternatives. )urprisingly, metaphors were mainly seen by students as fundamental aids for the

A)ynthesis of solutions in design practiceA and less helpful for A#nalysis of design problems.A

+owever, A#nalysis of design problemsA was highly correlated with all the creativity factors and,

as a conse$uence, was a major predictor of innovation and general creativity.

*t is maintained that novice students lack the necessary analytical skills to reflect in%depth

on design situations and therefore face some difficulties in using metaphors as a primary

analytical tool. The ac$uisition of analytical skills and the ability to perceive a problem from

different viewpoints is related to the development of expertise. *t is well documented in the

problem%solving literature that differences in skills between novices and experts are attributed to

differences in their analysis and representation of knowledge e.g., &hi, eltovich, < @lasser,

2B725 ;esgold, 2BB25 Cewel < )imon, 2B/-0. =xperience in a certain domain allows the

generation of abstract or conceptual problem representations and enhances the probability of

analy!ing a problem more in%depth, by focusing on structural features. =xperts are more likely to

represent problems $ualitatively, and $uite often apply conceptual thinking to produce abstract

and symbolic representations Medin < Ross, 2BB0. The low level of expertise of the students

that participated in this study is a possible reason due to which A&onceptual thinkingA was theweakest factor of metaphors and was unrelated to all factors characteri!ing creativity. *t can be

said that more expertise is needed to use metaphors in a better way.

The use of metaphors has important implications for design practice. #s expertise develops,

along with stronger abilities in analysis, synthesis, and conceptual thinking, the use of metaphors

can help to stimulate creativity in design activities. *nstead of re%using known design schemas


22/25

and familiar solutions, the implementation of metaphors in practice can contribute to

unconventional thinking and thereby generate more innovative design products.

#part from dealing with innovation in design, future intervention programs in the design

studio must regard more extensive aspects, such as functional and practical design issues.

*ntervention programs should also encourage students to be more fluent and consider more

design alternatives before engaging in the synthesis of a final design solution. These will not

only improve analytical abilities but also stimulate design creativity.

The scope of the present investigation has been limited to a study on how novice

architecture students assess the use of metaphors and the creativity of their own designs. *n a

future study, we will extend this research to explore the assessment of metaphors and design

creativity by experts and compare it with assessments from novice students.

Ackno2ledgments

Thanks are due to #rch. =dna ;angenthal and #rch. *lan &oren who supervised and guided the

first%year design students throughout the design task.

-eferences

2. #ntoniades, #. 2BB-0.oetis of arhiteture Theor% of design. Cew Lork1 an Costrand

Reinhold.

-. 9irk, M. 2BB70.*ran+ #lo%d right and the $rairie. Cew Lork1 >niverse.

3. &andy, ;., < =dmonds, =. 2BB40. &reative design of the ;otus bicycle1 *mplications for

knowledge support systems research.Design Studies, 1/20, /2%B.

D. &arter, (. 2BBB0.0ies van der ohe at 2or+. +ong Eong1 (haidon.

F. &asakin, +. (. -D0. Metaphors in the design studio1 *mplications for education. *n (. ;loyd, C.

Roo!enburg, &. McMahon, < ;. 9rodhurst =ds.0,roeedings of !nd International 3ngineering

and rodut Design 3duation Conferene - The Changing *ae of Design 3duation pp. -4F%

-/30. 'elft1 Civo (ress.

4. &asakin, +. (. -40. #ssessing the use of metaphors in the design process.3nvironment and

lanning 4 lanning and Design, 55-0, -F3 %-47.


23/25

/. &asakin, +. (., < Ereitler, ). -Fa0. The determinants of creativity1 lexibility in design. *n (.

Rodgers, ;. 9rodhurst, < '. +epburn =ds.0,roeedings of the 5rd 3ngineering & rodut

Design 3duation International Conferenepp. 33%3/0. ;ondon1 Taylor < rancis.

7. &asakin, +. (., < Ereitler, ). -Fb0. The nature of creativity in design1 actors for assessing

individual creativity. *n 6. ). @ero, < C. 9onnardel =ds.0,roeedings of International or+sho$

on Stud%ing Designerspp. 7/%20. )ydney1 >niversity of )ydney, Eey &entre of 'esign

&omputing and &ognition.

B. &hi, M. T. +., eltovich, (. 6., < @lasser, R. 2B720. &ategori!ation and representation of physics

problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Siene, "-0, 2-2%2F-.

2. &ol$uhoun, #. --0.0odern arhiteture. "xford1 >niversity (ress.

22. &oyne, R. 2BBF0.Designing information tehnolog% in the $ostmodern age *rom method to

meta$hor.&ambridge, M#1 M*T (ress

2-. &oyne, R. 2BB/0. &reativity as commonplace. Design Studies, 16-0, 23F%2D2.

23. &ross, C. 2BB/0. 'escriptive models of creative design1 #pplication to an

example.DesignStudies, 16D0, D-/%DFF.

2D. &siks!entmihalyi, M. 2BB/0. Creativit% - *lo2 and the $s%holog% of disover% and

invention.Cew Lork1 +arper (erennial.

2F. 'orst, E., < &ross, C. -20. &reativity in the design process1 &o%evolution of problem%

solution.Design Studies, !!F0, D-F%D3/.

24. inke, R. #., Ward, T. 9., < )mith, ). M. 2BB-0. Creative ognition Theor%, researh and

a$$liations. &ambridge, M#1 M*T (ress.

2/. @entner, '., 9owdle, 9., Wolff, (., < 9oronat, &. -20. Metaphor is like analogy. *n '.

@entner, E. 6. +olyoak, < 9. C. Eokinov =ds.0, The analogial mind ers$etives from

ognitive sienepp. 2BB%-F30. &ambridge, M#1 M*T (ress.

27. @ero, 6. ). -a0. &omputational models of innovative and creative design

processes. Tehnologial *oreasting and Soial Change, 78-%30, 273%2B4.

2B. @ero, 6. ). -b0. &reativity, emergence, and evolution in design.9no2ledge 4ased S%stems,

:/0, D3F%DD7.

-. @oel, . 2BBF0. S+ethes of thought &ambridge, M#1 M*T (ress.


24/25

-2. @uilford, 6. (. 2B720. (otentiality for creativity. *n 6. &. @owan, 6. Ehatena, < =. (. Torance

=ds.0, Creativit% Its eduational im$liations-nd ed., pp. 2%F0. 'ubu$ue, *#1 Eendall +unt.

--. +anna, R., < 9arber, T. -20. #n in$uiry into computers in design1 #ttitudes before%attitudes

after.Design Studies, !!30, -FF%-72.

-3. +eap, 6. 2B7B0. The management of innovation and design. ;ondon1 &assell.

-D. +siao, )., < &hou, 6. -D0. # creativity%based design process for innovative product

design.International Journal of Industrial 3rgonomis, 58F0, D-2%DD3.

-F. ;akoff, @. 2B7/0. omen, fire and dangerous things hat ategories reveal about the

mind. &hicago1 >niversity of &hicago (ress.

-4. ;akoff, @. 2BB30. The contemporary theory of metaphor. *n #. "rtony =d.0,0eta$hor and

thoughtpp. --%-F20. Cew Lork1 &ambridge >niversity (ress.

-/. ;akoff, @., < 6ohnson, M. 2B70.0eta$hors 2e live b%. &hicago1 >niversity of &hicago (ress.

-7. ;awson, 9. R. -D0. )chemata, gambits and precedent1 )ome factors in design

expertise.Design Studies, !"F0, DD3%DF/.

-B. ;esgold, #. 2BB20. (roblem%solving. *n R. )temberg, < =. )mith =ds.0, The $s%holog% of

human thoughtpp. 277%-230. &ambridge1 &ambridge >niversity (ress.

3. ;evine, C. 2BB40. The arhiteture of *ran+ #lo%d right. (rinceton, C61 (rinceton >niversity

(ress.

32. Medin, '., < Ross, 9. 2BB0. Cognitive $s%holog%. Cew Lork1 +arcourt 9race.

3-. Milgram, R., < #rad, R. 2B720. *deational fluency as a predictor of original problem%

solving.Journal of 3duational s%holog%, /5D0, F47%F/-.

33. Milgram, R., < 'avidovich, C. -40. &reative thinking as a predictor of teacher effectiveness at

three levels1 =lementary, secondary, and higher education. *nroeedings of the !7th

International Congress of A$$lied s%holog% N&'%R"MO. #thens, @reece.

3D. Cagai, L., < Taura, T. -40. ormal description of concept%synthesi!ing process for creative

design. *n 6. ). @ero =d.0,roeedings of the!nd International Conferene onDesign Com$uting

and Cognitionpp.DD3%D40. 9erlin1 )pringer.

3F. Cewell, #., < )imon, +. 2B/-0.;uman $roblem-solving. =nglewood &liffs, C61 (rentice +all.


25/25

34. "rtony, #. 2BB20.0eta$hor and thought. Cew Lork1 &ambridge >niversity (ress.

3/. Rowe, (. 2B7/0.Design thin+ing. &ambridge, M#1 M*T (ress.

37. Rubinstein, @. -30. #uthoritarism and its relation to creativity1 # comparative study among

students of design, behavioral sciences and law.ersonalit% and Individual Differenes, 58D0,

4BF%/F.

3B. )chGn, '. 2B730.3duating the refletive $ratitioner To2ard a ne2 design for teahing and

learning in the $rofessions. ;ondon1 Temple )mith.

D. )nodgrass, #., < &oyne, R. 2BB-0. Models, metaphors and the hermeneutics of

designing.Design Issues, :20, F4 %/D.

D2. )uwa, M., @ero, 6. )., < (urcell, T. -0. >nexpected discoveries and s%inventions of design

re$uirements1 *mportant vehicles for a design process.Design Studies, !140, F3B%F4/.

D-. Ward, #. 2BB0. *deology, culture and the design studio.Design Studies, 1120, 2%24.

Metaphors in Design Problem Solving.docx

Documents

Transcript of Metaphors in Design Problem Solving.docx